Subspace 2009b

The Great Void Which Is UnconditionedFullness

(Subspace 2009)

(c

) 2009 by Clete Goffard

One: The Expanding Universe.

I.Ants on a Balloon, Both the Ant and the Balloon expand.II.The Fundamental Mass Unit Hypothesis, A Cause of Mass?III.The Minkowski Coordinate System, There is No CommonDimension of Time, The Special Theory of Relativity.IV.The Expanding Earth Theory.[A Special Note: The view being presented herein is an alternative world view developed byits author, and should not be taken as an exposition of 'legacy' physics. C.G.]I.Ants On A Balloon.The idea of an expanding universe occurred to Edwin Hubble in the early 1920's, when heexamined 'nebula', faint smudges of distant light, with a newer and more powerful telescope atMt. Wilson, California. The smudges resolved into galactic shapes. He discovered frominterpreting their spectra that not only did the emission lines of atoms show a lower frequency, or red-ward shifting compared to closer light sources, but that the further away the galaxy wasestimated to be, the greater the red-ward shift. This was interpreted to mean that the galaxies weremoving away from one another like ants on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.Georges Lemaitre proposed that cause of this expansion was that all matter and energy hadonce been concentrated in a "Primeval Atom," which exploded in a titanic "Big Bang."The Big Bang theory did require modification as time went on. For one thing, subsequentcalculations showed that the expansion needed to be many times faster at the beginning than later,and the "Inflationary model", which went through several changes, was born. Later it wasdiscovered that rather than slowing down as a result of gravity, the rate of expansion wasincreasing.This highly unexpected result might be explained, it was supposed, by positing a"dark" energy" that was pushing the galaxies apart.All of this is mainly to explain the red-ward shifting of light coming from very distant sources.The kind of expansion thought to be occurring has been called gauge invariant, because it presumes that material objects retain the same scale. A commonly used analogy is that of ants onan expanding balloon: the balloon inflates, and the ants (galaxies) move apart creating relativespace, but the ants remain at a the same size as a result of gravity.But it is also a hypothesis of convenience, for if size or gauge, within the galaxy remainsconstant, local physics do not have to be changed.Both the Ant and the Balloon Expand.We propose that an entirely distinct kind of expansion, one we shall call universal gaugeexpansion, in which the ant is expanding at the same rate as the balloon.*To make the analogymore apt, we shall imagine that the ant drawn in ink. But in this kind of expansion, the galaxieswould not actually be moving apart, disregarding relative motions. Everything would simply begetting bigger--not only the space between the galaxies, but the galaxies themselves, and even theatoms within the galaxies. The ant would grow in size with the balloon.This idea of a universe in which everything expands uniformly can be laid at the doorstep of Roger Joseph Boscovich, a contemporary of Newton and Leibniz. Boscovich was a Jesuit, and

the Vatican's "science guy." In an exposition of his system (in which atoms were like points), hesaid it was conceivable that the universe could expand and contract in size daily without our being aware of it.A simple analogy which ought to convince us that this could actually 'work,' is to imagineourselves as part of an image which is being enlarged or decreased by a zoom lens. Everything inthe image, all objects and the space between them, can be enlarged with the twist of the lens. Therelation of elements, one to the other within the image, does not change. We are a part of theimage being zoomed--a view the expansion from outside introduces a distortion.Suppose our universe, without our being aware of it, expanded to twice its previous size.Could we tell the difference? We'd probably notice it if the length of the second remained thesame. If we measured the speed of light we would find that it was only half of what we expectedit to be (since it had to travel twice as far).But if the zooming of space had been accompanied bya zooming of time so that the second was also twice as long, the measurement would come outright.Boscovich apparently did not develop the his speculations about expansion further (in whichcase he would have had to deal with the time aspect), although the statement implies arelationship between time and space which we call the gauge rule. A convenient rule-of-thumb is:the bigger the clock, the slower it runs.But the time used in the gauge rule is not measured by the standard clock of physics, wherewe assume that the number of standard seconds is the quantity of time, and as space increases,the number of standard seconds increases proportionately.We are proposing that the length of thesecond expands.In the gauge rule, if one deals with length as a fundamental unit which can increase or decrease in size, then the fundamental unit of time, the second, can be imagined to expand andcontract, as well. In other words, the rate of change of length divided by the the rate of change of time equals a constant. Since units of measurement are arbitrary, the constant may be set as c, theobserved speed of light.Use of the gauge rule is restricted: one can't simply scale up size and expect time to be slower.Something more fundamental is involved, and that something is the behavior of what we call the"self-enclosed wave," a fundamental, pulsating, pattern, which we shall deal with in the nextsection.Dewey B. Larson, an engineer, earlier developed what he called the Reciprocal System, inwhich a relation quite similar to what we have called the gauge rule plays a pivotal part: theconcept of space (length) and time (seconds) as reciprocals of one another. Larson also conceivedof an expanding universe, but one consistent with the current (ant-on-a-balloon) view. And hisreciprocal system seems to be based on length as defined by the number of standard units, andtime as the number of standard seconds.Because he saw universal expansion as having magnitude(speed) but no (actually an infinite number of) linear direction (s), he called it scalar, rather thanvector motion.* *

* Our personal inclination is to call it zoom expansion.* *The official site for Larson's system is:http://rstheory.org ,Dr. Bruce Peret, proprietor.

II.The Fundamental Mass Unit Hypothesis.We can measure space with a rule and time with a clock, apparently directly. But mass, a property of matter, cannot be so measured; we measure instead resistance to acceleration, and posit that some attribute of matter gives rise to the resistance.But resistance to acceleration is a relation and not a something which can exist independentlyof relation. Now one would think that in this case there must be a somethingness to mass, and thatthis somethigness is involved in the relation. If it only exists as a relation, then what is its statuswhen it is not relating? If it can't be measured, in other words, does it exist? We prefer to deal

with material substance, then, as a persisting something which exists independently of relations,one of the relations of which is mass.It is a common truism that the the total rest mass of an object can be divided by dividing thematerial in the object. Half of the loaf is about half the mass of the whole loaf. We can take thedivision to the size of atoms, at which point we must either stop or break the atom up intosmaller parts. The atom has mass, and the parts of the atom, electrons, neutrons and protons, aswell as the "pieces" they are broken into. It seems that the atomic level is not the primary level of organization, for below that are the elusive quarks.Where does divisibility end? Does the final product of division, itself, have mass, or is mass arelation created between parts at an even finer level? Fortunately, for the purposes of our discussion, we do not need to know. What we shall do is to employ a working hypothesis, whichcan be described in these terms:There is a unit of materiality that we shall call the fundamental mass unit which is the smallest(observable) amount of gravitational and inertial mass. Note that the fmu need not be an actual particle--that's not important here--its merely the smallest, concrete, unit of mass to which wehave need to make reference.Our purpose for positing the fmu is this. Physics, in considering mass as a fundamentalquantity, is defining mass in terms of relative

amounts

of mass. Relative amounts of mass can bemeasured and compared.What we want to do is to explore relations the relations of mass as athing of itself, and the relations of that to other masses.We can say that the proper mass of an object is the sum of the fmu's it contains: m=n(fmu).For example, when Newton's apple fell, we can more properly say that gravity acted not on themass as a quantity, but upon each fmu individually. It is the individual fmu that is accelerated, andhence the accelerated speed of falling is not determined by the quantity of fmu's it contains, buton the acceleration of each individual fmu.Or, let us consider the famous Law of Gravitation, F=Gm1m2/d^2. Why multiply one mass bythe other?( one might ask). While m1m2 is a product, it is also a sum. The first mass, m1,contains n1 fundamental mass units, and the second, n2, fmu. Each fmu of n1 has n2 relationswith the second mass. The sum of all the relations of the fmu's of m1 with m2 is simply m1m2.Suppose a solid object in our vicinity suddenly disappeared, or shall we say, dematerialized.What happens to the mass? We can imagine that the mass becomes imaginary, which is another way of saying not detectable. The framework of our thinking is structured on detectability. If itcannot be measured, it does not exist, is a rule of thumb for physical reality.It is necessary, for our purposes, to borrow a term from the physics of energy and posit kineticmass and potential mass. The energy of an object raised to a higher elevation, for example, isconsidered to be potential.Following this line of thought, we will conceive of the mass of a disappearing object becoming potential. The need for doing this will soon be clear when we consider the possibilityof a physical object being phase-shifted. If it is moved slightly ahead, or backward in the timecycle, it would, no doubt, disappear from our environment. We can then consider that its' masshas become potential, rather than ceasing to exist. A Cause of Mass?As a result of the "zoom" expansion we have suggested, any two physical objects in the present instant are further apart than they were in the previous instant. A slight lag in expansionwould be equivalent to their being slightly accelerated backward in time toward a closer conjunction.Hence, it might seem to the observer that they attracted one another gravitationally.But how do we account for a backward motion? It is the mass, after all, that is the evidence of the expansion. We think that we must posit a varying rate of expansion. The expansion is notlinear, but speeds up and slows down as we expect cyclical time to do. If the rate of expansion